ArmyofOne

America's Interstate Highway system was started in 1956, and wasn't completed until 1992, making it the longest government-subsidized construction project in the history of the United States. The brainchild of the Interstate Highway System, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, would pass away in 1969, 23 years before his project would be completed. The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years. However, it ended up costing $114 billion (~$445 billion in 2019 dollars), and took 35 years to fully complete. With that said, technology and building/construction techniques and advanced materials have made significant advancements since 1992. Not to mention that 1992 was 27 years ago (I'll just let that sink in a minute, because for some of us, it seems like yesterday ). Fast forward to today, our freeways are clogged, constantly being improved/fixed, and it seems like by the time the crews are done working on a section of interstate, the traffic flow is too much for the new stretch and so they have to start at the beginning and make it even wider. At least, that's the general consensus here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

So here is my idea. I have said for years that we need to build an elevated freeway system (think double-decker freeways such as I-635 "LBJ Freeway" in Dallas), and move the car and passenger traffic to the elevated freeway decks, leaving the lower (existing) freeways strictly for 18-wheeler/commercial truck traffic. Then, we have fewer crashes, fewer fatalities, and less traffic congestion because there are dedicated routes for cars and big rigs. Will it cost? Yes. It will cost a shatload. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. Can it be done? Absolutely. Nobody thought we could afford Eisenhower's interstate system in the 50's when he was having it constructed, but we did. Are you out of work? Oh no! Well, here is this new program called "The Road to Work" (that's pretty punny!) whereby the government subsidizes to pay you $20/hr+ benefits and overtime, and you work on the new Elevated Freeway System (let's just call them E-highways: E-5, E-95 etc.).

So how will we pay for it? Well, for years now, Texas has pioneered what has become known as "advance funding". Every time a major state highway is built or improved, it is put to a vote before work can begin. The state contracts a company (in DFW its the North Texas Tollway Authority, or NTTA) to charge tolls. Now, the beauty of advance funding is that the state (TXDOT) funds the road. After the road is completed, NTTA charges tolls until the funds are paid back to TXDOT. It takes decades to pay back in some cases (Like TX-121 or George Bush Turnpike), or simply a matter of years, like the TexPress lanes going to the airport from various parts of the city.

Now there is a problem with this advance funding idea. The catch is, the freeways need improvements faster than we can pay them off, so what happens? The tolls end up increased and extended to fund new improvements. So, we basically end up with a permanent toll road. They aren't too bad around here, but in some states, a trip to and from an airport can cost $50 in tolls or more, which is a substantial expense. Here in DFW, I can get to the airport by way of the Sam Rayburn Tollway (TX-121) from my house in about 45 minutes (sans traffic). That same trip, before TX-121 was completed, took 2+ hours. So it's nice to have. The entire round trip costs me about $20 in tolls, because I have to travel the entire tolled length of SRT, about 30 miles. So for ~$0.30 a mile, I can get to the airport and back. I don't see that as unreasonable, as the toll pays for the road maintenance (in its entirety) as well as roadside assistance for stranded motorists on the highway, and other perks.

Some states, like NY, have thruway toll highways (I-90) that charge a toll all the way through the state. My total trip on I-90 from syracuse to buffalo when i was stationed in NY would cost me something in the neighborhood of $25 total, so when you look at it from that perspective, DFW's tolls are absurd. But when you look at it from the perspective of the tolls in SoCal, NYC, Washington DC, Miami, and other larger metro areas (even Houston is higher), the tolls aren't so bad here.

So what is stopping us from stacking a new interstate on top of the old one? It isn't necessarily money. The project would probably cost close to, if not over, $1,000,000,000,000 (That's 1 TRILLION smackers). But would it be worth it? How many human lives would be spared from accidents involving cars and semi's? How important is it to ease the trucker's job of getting his goods transported to his destination on time and intact? It will be much easier to do that if the trucks don't have to fight with cars for space in freeways. I think we could raise speed limits on the auto freeways too and still be safer than we are now.

What are your thoughts?

Toys4RJill

This thread would be great for the Car Chat forum. I don't believe a double decker highway system would enhance anyones lives.

ArmyofOne

I thought i had posted in car chat. Whoops. Too many tabs open.

Its not so much that we need a double decker freeway, but that we need a viable alternative to what we have as more and more vehicles take to the roads every year. In the last decade, i have seen an easily tenfold increase in the number of big trucks on the road. On the interstate not far from my home, we average around 30 fatalities a year, and most involve an 18 wheeler or large box-truck, and a car. The ONLY real solution is to put them on separate roadways (at least the interstates, cant do much about city roads). Since the structures are already in place, why not just build travel lanes for cars above the 18-wheeler-only lanes? This way truckers arent frustrated by us normal folks, we arent frustrated by them cutting us off etc, and everyone wins. Not to mention putting a generation of young Americans to work.

pngo

tex2670

What do you mean that the highway system was "completed" in 1992? There have been no new interstate highways/spurs built in the past 27 years?

mmarshall

I respect your views, Josh, but, IMO, before we start to implement any new highway project, we need to spend a lot more (and/or a lot more effort) into maintaining the existing highway infrastructure. Many of the existing Interstate highways are in deplorable condition....particularly in PA, northern WV, and in many parts of the Great Lakes Snow Belt. The periodic Beltway repavings, here in the D.C. area, are a joke......they're fine for a couple of months (maybe a year or two at the most) then are full of potholes, frost-heaves, and pavement-cracks....not to mention deteriorating bridges and overpasses. I attribute much of that to cheap, poor-quality asphalt regularly getting pounded by big semis weighting 75-80K pounds....the pavement probably would last a lot longer, even in bad weather, if they used better quality paving materials.

As far as the labor is concerned, something I have advocated for years (and where money could be saved), is instead of having prisoners and inmates make license plates, why not (weather and conditions permitting) simply have a work-program whereby prisoners are given a course in how to repave/repair potholes, and put them work on the roads where needed? It wouldn't be an old-fashioned chain-gang as such, but would more or less serve the same purpose.....at a lot less cost than with the present contractors. As an incentive, good work on the part of these inmates could result in a reduction in their sentences. And, IMO, those prisoners couldn't possibly do a worse job than what the present paving-contractors and utility companies do, when they tear up the roads to access water-mains, gas-lines, power-cables, etc....and then make slipshod fill-ins that deteriorate and fall out overnight.

ArmyofOne

Highways yes. Interstate highways, no. At least, not that were in the original Eisenhower Interstate System plan.

Not sure what you mean by "high throughout roads" but the disruption would be fairly minimal. When they raised the I-635 LBJ Deck and built another level under it here in Dallas, it took 5 years, but traffic was already horrific in that area, and it didn't really get any worse in the time they were working on it. It was 6 lanes wide when they started, now its 8 lanes on top, 6 on bottom and cut the time to get from the I-35e/I-635 interchange, to the high 5 (I-635/US-75 interchange) in half, even at rush hour. When I got out of the service in 2014 they were about halfway done with it, they finished it in 2017.

ArmyofOne

Therein lies the problem. 18-wheelers DESTROY typical pavement, and concrete doesn't really work for interstates in the north like it does down here south of the Mason-Dixon line. But, even using asphalt (which is significantly cheaper than concrete), Semi-trucks tear it up, but they would not be tearing up the car interstates if they had their own highways. Obviously this won't really be cost effective in rural areas, but in and around metro areas it could pay for itself in a matter of years. Concrete is MUCH tougher, and asphalt doesn't really work in areas where the temperatures exceed triple digits on a regular basis. If we put the 18 wheelers on their own roads, our road system would last a lot longer.

Bear in mind I am not talking about surface streets. I am talking about Interstate and US highways, that have speed limits in excess of 55mph, and have no stop lights or intersections, only on/off ramps.

The fact that the highways in the NE US are in such bad shape is WHY this needs addressed in the first place.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Maybe in Texas, but here in California we're still waiting on our next catastrophic earthquake. Not a good idea for the Golden State.

ArmyofOne

I honestly hadn't thought of that. But why is it a bad idea? Skyscrapers can be built to be earthquake resistant, why not elevated freeways? Also, doesn't Los Angeles have a subway system underground, not far from an active fault zone?

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Most modern structures can have 'simple bearing rollers' also known as earthquake rollers to be resistant. But tall freeway spans aren't built on rollers. Just reinforced. Southern California itself has about 10,000 earthquakes a year though the majority are not felt. Only a few hundred are greater than magnitude 3.0, and a little less than 20 are greater than magnitude 4.0. Yes the San Andreas fault zone is north of LA and extends down to Baja, CA up past San Francisco. The fault zone is very close to I10, I5, US101, and HW1. The problem is when 'The Big One' hits (magnitude 7.0 or greater), the state is already not prepared. Add millions of vehicles on the road in a state that has nearly 40 million people. Now when those elevated freeways collapse or get damaged, it would be catastrophic. Not that your idea isn't good, just not for CA IMO

Toys4RJill

tex2670

If you tell me that truck are dangerous, I wouldn't assume that the primary reason this is the case is based on the experience or ability of the drivers. With a truck, there's a much higher potential for injury and damage to others based on the truck's size, even if something that happens is unavoidable. If a truck tire blows out, and the driver can't maintain control, it can be a lot worse than if that happened on a Civic.

tex2670

This idea has been floated (without substance) for the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) in Philly, out to its connection with the Penna Turnpike. It's notoriously jammed, and at the City line, goes from 4-lanes, at an interchange with US-1, down to 2 lanes. It's a mess going into the City; it's a mess on the reverse commute out of the City.

However, when people talk about this 2nd deck, I don't think any of then drive the Schuylkill, because I just don't see, with train bridges, street overpasses, a big hill, and the Schuylkill River, how it's even physically possible, putting aside the cost and years of disruption of the existing traffic. I suppose ask any Bostonian who survived the Big Dig.

Interesting idea, but pie in the sky.

Toys4RJill

I have no idea. However, my assumption is that you are more likely to get killed by a driver of a car than a truck driver. That is why I wondering if there was any evidence towards trucks being more dangerous. Yes, I agree that the destruction that trucks cause can be great, but chances of destruction could be far less.